Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0908 CC SPC ITEM 08I /PAITEM ars AGENDA REPORT py Coo , CALIFORNIA Cary Council Meeting Cityof Moorpark of 9"a 1993 1 ACTION: Ire-V-4k TO: The Honorable City Council - ByAU�+C, LtW FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development � et_iy eitAk DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST BY COLMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Background: Mr. Colmer filed a Minor Modification on July 14, 1993 for the purpose of amending conditions related to the required City street standards. Mr. Colmer's request was approved by the Director of Community Development on August 18, 1993 and reviewed by the City Council on the same date. As part of Mr. Colmer's request for a minor modification, he listed several issues which he wished the Council to discuss. At the meeting of August 18, 1993, Mr. Colmer was informed by the City Council that the issue at hand was the minor modification. Mr. Colmer was further informed that the other issues would be referred to the Community Development Committee (Mayor Lawrason and Councilmember Perez) for review and that those issues would then be reviewed by the Council as a separate agenda item. The Committee met on August 23, 1993 and discussed Mr. Colmer's request as embodied in his letter to the Committee dated August 19, 1993 (Attachment). The Committee decided to recommend to the City Council the following: Item No. 1 Charles Abbott & Associates will be the City Engineer responsible for the project. Item No. 2 Whether or not the project is reinspected will be left to the discretion of the City Engineer. Item No. 3 Charles Abbott & Associates will inform the City as to the appropriate amount of bond to be retained. Item No. 4 The Committee agreed that the $3,000 cash bond should be released. JRA:crl 8/26/93 C:\93JAS\TR4081CC The Honorable City Council August 26, 1993 Page 2 Item No. 5 The accounting department will prepare and provide a statement of charges made to the Colmer account for inspection services. Existing practices and procedures will be followed with no prorated refund for Grimes Canyon Road. Any deposit remaining after completion of work of the City Engineer will be refunded. Item No. 6 The Committee agreed that the City should accept Mr. Colmer's offer to pay actual costs. Item No. 7 The Committee agreed to refund all funds not used to pay consultants (Charles Abbott & Associates). Staff Recommendation: Concur with the Community Development Committee recommendation contained in this report. Attachment - Mr. Colmer's letter dated August 19, 1993. JRA:crl 8/26/93 C:\93JAS\TR4081CC ATTACHMENT Mr. Colmer's letter dated August 19, 1993 COLMER DEVELUPViENT company 23875 Ventura Boulevard . Suite 201B . Calabasas, CA 91302 . (818) 222-5666 . FAX (818) 222-5668 RECEIVED AUG 2 31993 August 19, 1993 City Development Departm. CITY OF MOORPARK Community Development Committee 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Orchard Downs Dear Mayor Lawrason and Councilman Perez: There are several unresolved issues going back as far as 1991 related to my development of Tract 4081. I have been frustrated with delays answering my concerns. These delays have forced me to halt improvements that need to be made on my subdivision until there is a resolution. The delays have unnecessarily increased my costs, too. They are: (1) . Formal assignment of a City Engineer, Wildan or Abbott, to be responsible for exonerating my bonds. In May of 1992, after the rainy season, we tried to complete our subdivision improvements. The City delayed our efforts for several months while they decided which City Engineer, past or present, should be responsible for our tract. After months of behind the scenes negotiations, I was told, Wildan agreed to inspect the tract. We are now told that Abbott may be the Engineer responsible for inspecting improvements. This assign- ment of a City Engineer has been up in the air since May of 1992 . (2) . I request that improvements already inspected and approved not be reinspected. Wildan has inspected the grading and onsite improvements. There should be no need for reinspection. The City Engineer should be directed to inspect only new improvements. Completed work should not be picked apart by a new Engineer. -- RECEIVED - AUG 2 3 119 i t•,, n1 Moor-7,, r City Development Committee August 19, 1993 Page Two (3) . Partial or full exoneration of existing site improvement and grading bonds of $735, 000 and $350, 000 should be made immediately. The residual bond should not exceed $100, 000. It is staff policy not to release any bond until all improve- ments and obligations to the City have been completely satisfied. Bond renewal fees are due in October. These fees will cost me $15, 000. My individual bonds have been earmarked for specific improvements; therefore, they do not have to be tied together and released all at once. There is no reason that the existing site improvements and grading bonds cannot be exonerated now. (4) . I request that the $3, 000 cash bond guaranteeing the removal of the project sales office be released immediately. Exoneration was requested in September of 1992 . The sales office was removed in August of 1992. Mr. Kueny has told me that he will not release this bond until I settle the dispute over off tract improvements claimed by the City on Grimes Canyon Road. I think he is being unreasonable. This bond should not be tied to County street improvements. The City has had $990, 000 in site and grading bonds as protection. (5) . I request a written accounting of all inspection costs related to my subdivision, and that I be credited in full for any unused inspection fees. Grimes Canyon Road improvements were never inspected. Mr. Kueny stated in the Council meeting that 90o to 95% of the inspection fees had 'been used at the subdivision. He stated that an abnormal amount of reinspections were required. I do not recall an abnormal number of inspections, and believe that very few inspections were made at the tract. An accounting based on Mr. Kueny's claim must exist. I would like to see it. County inspection and plan check fees for Grimes Canyon Road improvements will be approximately $5, 344. Since Wildan never inspected Grimes Canyon Road, that portion of the inspection fees collected by the City for Grimes Canyon Road should be refunded. (6) . I request that the City respond to my proposal to settle a dispute for the repairs made by the City to Grimes Canyon Road claimed by the City to be my responsibility. I have proposed as a compromise to pay the actual costs, even though I am not responsible. In 1991, the City made repairs to Grimes Canyon Road they claimed were my responsibility. I denied that it was my responsibility. Community Development Committee August 19, 1993 Page Three A pre-existing drainage line was installed by others years prior to any work by on my subdivision. The drainage line compaction had subsidence and created a dip in Grimes Canyon Road. The drainage line crossing happened to be located at the entrance to my • subdivision. The City claims, per their December, 1992 letter to me by Ken Gilbert, "the City does not claim to be able to document the precise cause for the subsidence. It could be related to some problems resulting from the construction activity. It could be the result of an increased volume of heavy truck traffic entering and leaving the development. The point is that the problem occurred at the precise location where all these events occurred, and these events are the result of your construction efforts. " During this same period, truck traffic from Walnut Canyon Road was rerouted down Grimes Canyon Road. Very heavy construction trucks carrying gravel and concrete traveled this road frequently. The weight of any one of these trucks was far greater than the vehicles on our development. I have tried to be reasonable and reimburse the City for its out of pocket cost to make the repairs. The City has added inspection and 25% overhead fees onto their out of pocket expenses, and refuses to negotiate. I have been willing to compromise; the City hasn't. They are holding my cash bond hostage. This repair work should have been a normal maintenance responsibility of the City or County, but since I was nearby, they tried to pass off the cost to me. (7) . I request that the $498.00 minor modification fee be refunded in full. The modification was required due to a City error. The City should be responsible for absorbing the cost of filing this necessary modification that was a result of their failure to recognize Grimes Canyon Road belongs to the County. Sincerely, Wayne Colmer WC/mc ,r. c 00 PA A. 1�r 7 o\� 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 52.96864 October 15, 1991 Colmer Development Company 23875 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 2018 Calabasas, CA 91302 Re: Invoice for Street Repairs Associated with Tract 4081 Dear Mr. Colmer, 1 This will serve as an INVOICE in the amount of $4 , 025. 94 to cover City incurred expenses for the repair of certain streets damaged by your company. During and as .a result of the construction efforts of your company associated with the development of the subject tract, a severe depression in the roadway developed at the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Turfway Drive . I am advised that the former City Engineer, John Knipe, had requested that you take steps to repair this problem. Apparently his attempts failed to yield a timely response from your company. For obvious safety reasons , the City felt it necessary to make the required repairs . This is to request that you reimburse the City for those expenses . The basis for this reimbursement is as follows : Contract Cost $3 , 120. 75 Inspection 100 . 00 Sub-total $3 , 220 . 75 . Overhead & Administration ( 25% ) 800. 19 , Total $4 , 02.5 . 94 • Please remit the above amount by November 22 , 1991 . If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call . Sipce dl �,, rf Ken Gilbert Public Works Director cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager Charles Abbott, City Engineer John Knipe, Wilidan Associates Finance rAl)T w I/IWnnSO1I ,1n PFnNnnno 1.1 rrnFZ SCOT T 1,InPI1nOMFnr nor F Intl Fr Jn JOIIFJ F wn7riuw eynr 1.IAyo, rrn Trm (-AmrnrT,t+vnrllmnmh•r rMrecnT•"±•r Grimes Canyon Road Page 2 City at the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Turfway Drive. In response we believe these charges are appropriate. The justification is based on a number of points , including but limited to the following summary : a . The City contacted you several times requesting that you undertake the necessary street repairs through your own resources . We received no cooperation . In response to a growing safety problem, the City was forced to undertake the necessary repairs . b. Although asphalt patching was required at a number of locations on Grimes Canyon Road , there were no other locations where the street subsided . This problem was confined to the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Turfway Drive . It did not exist prior to construction of Turfway Drive. It is the view of the City that the street subsidence is related to the addition of this intersection. c. The City does not claim to be able to document the precise cause for the subsidence. It could be related to some problem resulting from the construction activity. It could be the result of an increased volume of heavy truck traffic entering and leaving the development. It could be caused by the slow turning movements of the heavy trucks at that location . The point is that the problem occurred at the precise location where all of these events occurred , and these events are the result of your construction efforts . • 5 . Bond Exoneration: To reiterate information provided to you by the City Treasurer, Mr. Hare, it is the policy of the City to consider the exoneration of bonds only when • all of the outstanding issues related to the project have been resolved . Please call if you have any questions. Sincer ly ` • Ken Gilbert Public Works Director cc : Steven Kueny , City Manager Richard hare, Deputy City Manager Pat Dobbins , Willdan Associates